pdshfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Sheik
Hello, everybody! This is Glammazon speaking. I wanted to tell you that l created an infotext - infosquare, or whatever it's called - for this latest entry but was unable to add it because when I tried to do so, my computer system's speed was greatly reduced temporarily. The infotext, like this entry, is called THE SHEIK.Glammazon (talk) 03:04, July 30, 2016 (UTC) Please don't do that again. Nobody else ever does that and we don't need useless, excess pages... especially for something that doesn't even work. Below is a blank infobox. When you need it, click the dropdown arrow next to "Add topic" above, then click "Edit." Once that's done, click "Source" in the top, right corner and then just copy and paste the blank infobox to where you need it and fill in the blanks. This is what I had tried to teach you previously but, you ignored it. Hopefully you learn this time. We also don't title pages with "The."Cebr1979 (talk) 07:10, July 30, 2016 (UTC) Great! Now, fill in the blanks please! :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 14:41, July 30, 2016 (UTC) :Hmm... I see that you did... Please let me have a moment to figure out why this didn't work. :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 14:45, July 30, 2016 (UTC) ::Ok, so... Here you can see what you did. You didn't copy & paste like I told you to.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:52, July 30, 2016 (UTC) The page also had innacuracies and shows the importance of doing some research beforehand. The character did not first appear in the 1921 US movie but in the 1919 UK novel on which the movie was based. As it was first published in the UK by an English author who died in 1947, the novel seems to not yet be in the public domain in its country of origin or in the large number of other countries that require seventy years post mortem auctoris. (The novel is nevertheless widely available online on HathiTrust, the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, LibriVox and Wikisource.) Additionally, the 1926 sequel was included as if it were in the public domain also, but is it? Was its copyright not renewed? —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 01:51, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :In looking into the sequel, it appears the 1926 film was based on a novel from the year before. Being after 1923, it would/should/might fall under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (I think - I'm really rusty on this part of PD laws) provided all four criteria were met for it to do so... which I can't remember what they all were? One was it had to be released in the US either within 30 days or less of its original publishing country -OR- maybe it was after 30 days or more??? (Like I said... "Rusty!" haha) Regardless... I can't remember the other three at all... I'm searching now... I remember looking into it when researching the Pippi Longstocking article... Gimme a bit, I'm on it! :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 03:36, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::Ugh! Apparently, I need to trust myself more! LOL! I left the link to the four criteria in the Notes section of Pippi's article! Will start reviewing now and let you know what I find! *shakes head at myself*Cebr1979 (talk) 03:40, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :The 1926 movie is American, so it would need to have had its copyright renewed to still be under copyright. The 1925 novel is still under copyright in its source country and so should still be under copyright in the US as well, whether its US copyright was renewed or not. (If the US copyright had lapsed from failure to be renewed, the URAA would have restored it. The only possible exception to that would be if it were released in the US within thirty days of its release in the UK, in which case it would be considred legally to have been released “simultaneously” in the two countries. Researching the publishing dates could therefore only determine its copyright status in the US.) —ElyaqimNYC (talk) 05:24, August 1, 2016 (UTC) ::Well... Except that, regardless of what country released the movie first, if the novel is still under copyright in the US, anything from the movie that relied on original info (or, possibly: characters) from the novel would still be under copyright in any case. If the novel featured a new character named "Tom" that also appeared in the movie... The movie's PD status is irrelevant (provided the novel is still under, or has re-entered, copyright status, of course): "Tom" still can't be used in the US.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:37, August 1, 2016 (UTC) :::That was the confusion around the King Kong article created recently (at least I think that was the confusion behind it)...Cebr1979 (talk) 05:39, August 1, 2016 (UTC) Can't find anything (though, admittedly... though I have looked... I haven't looked very hard and I don't really want to - if anyone wants to bring the page to standard and reinstate it, I'd put more effort into finding the sequel info but... I just sorta realised... if I do find the sequel info... I'll have to bring the page back and, at some point, I just have to stop doing that so... I'm not gonna). The page is marked for deletion and can stay that way as far as I'm concerned. Night all! Bed time for this kid. :-)Cebr1979 (talk) 08:54, August 1, 2016 (UTC)